Stump vision

K N Prabhu

There was something very familiar about the tall lean figure, hands clasped behind his back, standing as umpire in the Australia-South Africa Test at Johannesburg recently.

I had seen that same figure during my recent Australian holiday and had heard the approval of the umpires - "A very good decision, the ball would have missed the leg stump. Venkat is one of the best umpires in the game."

In fact, Venkat is the very best, according to the unofficial cricket ratings - and considering the dissent shown by players against the decisions of other so-called neutral umpires, it is clear that Srinivas Venkatraraghvan, former Tamil Nadu and India captain and now a Test umpire, has secured the vote of the majority.

I was to meet Venkat in the flesh the other day, straddling a bar stool in the five-star MCC Club House at Chepauk. The mop of dark hair had given way to a discreet short cut, with a touch of grey behind the neck and ears, as becoming one whose word is law on the field.

He looked as fit as ever, as in the days, when along with Prasanna and Bedi, he had lent an edge to the Indian attack in that glorious English summer of 1971. And as he said with justifiable pride, " still play cricket in the local league and quite recently claimed the figures of 9-9-0-0. The batsmen, as I told them, were not good enough to get a touch." Besides, he recalled the day, not so long ago at the Brabourne Stadium, when he had bowled Viv Richards with one that moved from the leg stump to take the off bail. Richards had acknowledged the delivery, calling it a "Master ball."

A warm embrace, followed by "I can't believe it's you, Niran," was his acknowledgment of an association reaching back to Venkat's first Test series in 1964-65 against New Zealand and the shared joy and fun during the triumphant tours of West Indies and England in 1971. I told Venkat that I was pleasantly surprised to see him on TV when I was in Australia and he said that I would soon be seeing him again when he umpired in South Africa.

Naturally enough, I had to ask him his opinion of Jonty Rhodes' controversial catch which accounted for Tendulkar. Venkat stood by umpire Mitchley's decision. Had Tendulkar not "walked" but stood his ground, Mitchley would have either been forced to consult the square-leg umpire or call for the third umpire's verdict, Venkat pointed out.

We soon got talking about other matters and it was clear that Venkat felt very strongly about the raw deal he got as Test umpire. "I'm being paid an equivalent to what I would be getting for umpiring in India. Imagine Peter Willey getting five times as much for doing the same job," he said with a great deal of indignation.

On the face of it, this seems to be blatantly unfair and is worth looking into by our Board officials - if they are to uphold the status of our umpires and encourage others to follow in Venkat's footsteps.

The other sore point with Venkat is the monetary awards given in recognition of services to cricket. He said while veterans, like Hazare and Mushtaq had played for the country and done justice to their talents, they had put little back into the game. He however had contributed to every department of cricket.

Venkat was very vehement when he pointed out that he had captained India in a Test at Lord's and had also umpired in a Test at Lord's and he had held important positions at the state and national level and served on several committees.

In addition he had been a radio and TV commentator and written for the press.

In short Venkat had done everything except, in the words of Andrew Lang, played the role of pavilion cat!

I tried to mollify him by assuring him that his time would soon come and described the details of the Board's scheme was to reward the old grey men whose stirring deeds had kept interest in the game alive.

Else it might have gone the way of our hockey which does not attract the following it did in the days of Balbir, Udham and company.

But Venkat was not to be molified. He was not asking for charity, he said, but for a just recognition of the services he had rendered.

His views commanded respect even if they did not quite convince me. I felt the wording of the award or the citation was not correct.

Venkat's views, I thought, would have been heard sympathetically by C P Johnstone, once Madras' captain and now in Elysian fields. I was reminded of an umpire's faux pas. Asked at which end he would be umpiring, this innocent replied, "I am umpire for Nungambakam", whereupon Johnstone is said to have rebuked him with "Umpires don't umpire for sides."

There is one umpire from the southern city who would have won Johnstone's wholehearted approval - S Venkatraghavan.